Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35094390›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2022

General and custom deep learning autosegmentation models for organs in head and neck, abdomen, and male pelvis.

Asma Amjad, Jiaofeng Xu, Dan Thill, Colleen Lawton, William Hall, Musaddiq J Awan, Monica Shukla, Beth A Erickson, X Allen Li

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Asma AmjadDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
Jiaofeng XuElekta Inc, Missouri, USA.
Dan ThillElekta Inc, Missouri, USA.
Colleen LawtonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
William HallDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
Musaddiq J AwanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
Monica ShuklaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
Beth A EricksonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
X Allen LiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
Medical College of Wisconsin · USElekta (United States) · US

Funding

Machine learning accelerated on-line adaptive replanningR01CA247960 · NCI · MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN · PI PAULSON, ERIC S · 2020 to 2024
$2.4M
Medical College of Wisconsin (MCW) Cancer Center Froedtert Hospital Foundation; MCW Fotsch Foundation; Elekta ABNational Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health R01CA247960NCI NIH HHS R01 CA247960
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo reduce workload and inconsistencies in organ segmentation for radiation treatment planning, we developed and evaluated general and custom autosegmentation models on computed tomography (CT) for three major tumor sites using a well-established deep convolutional neural network (DCNN).

methodsFive CT-based autosegmentation models for 42 organs at risk (OARs) in head and neck (HN), abdomen (ABD), and male pelvis (MP) were developed using a full three-dimensional (3D) DCNN architecture. Two types of deep learning (DL) models were separately trained using either general diversified multi-institutional datasets or custom well-controlled single-institution datasets. To improve segmentation accuracy, an adaptive spatial resolution approach for small and/or narrow OARs and a pseudo scan extension approach, when CT scan length is too short to cover entire organs, were implemented. The performance of the obtained models was evaluated based on accuracy and clinical applicability of the autosegmented contours using qualitative visual inspection and quantitative calculation of dice similarity coefficient (DSC), mean distance to agreement (MDA), and time efficiency.

resultsThe five DL autosegmentation models developed for the three anatomical sites were found to have high accuracy (DSC ranging from 0.8 to 0.98) for 74% OARs and marginally acceptable for 26% OARs. The custom models performed slightly better than the general models, even with smaller custom datasets used for the custom model training. The organ-based approaches improved autosegmentation accuracy for small or complex organs (e.g., eye lens, optic nerves, inner ears, and bowels). Compared with traditional manual contouring times, the autosegmentation times, including subsequent manual editing, if necessary, were substantially reduced by 88% for MP, 80% for HN, and 65% for ABD models.

conclusionsThe obtained autosegmentation models, incorporating organ-based approaches, were found to be effective and accurate for most OARs in the male pelvis, head and neck, and abdomen. We have demonstrated that our multianatomical DL autosegmentation models are clinically useful for radiation treatment planning.

Indexed as

Deep LearningHead and Neck NeoplasmsAbdomenHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMaleOrgans at RiskPelvisRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assistedadaptive radiation therapyCT-based autosegmentationdeep learningradiation therapy planning

Identifiers

PMID35094390
PMCPMC8917093
OpenAlexW4210264407

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.